2nd Amendment Discussion

[Porter Rockwell]

That still has nothing to do with an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. Even the Heller decision in the United States Supreme Court acknowledges that.

There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment. All terms are collective and plural not singular and individual.

The Right does not need to be in the Second Amendment. It is a Right that predates the Constitution. It existed before the Constitution was penned and, according to the United States Supreme Court, the Right is NOT DEPENDENT upon the Constitution for its existence.

You misunderstand our federal form of Government and our written Constitution and supreme law of the land. Nothing is more supreme. Natural rights are found and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment. Natural rights are available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

No, YOU misunderstand. I've already posted the court holdings. I'll do it one more time. If you misrepresent the law again after that, everybody will realize that you are ignorant troll. Watch and learn:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

This is the courts telling you that absolute Rights existed BEFORE the Constitution was written. Do you understand that principle?

Then the courts went on to rule again and make sure you understand that absolute Rights are natural, inherent, and unalienable.

You can have your opinion all day long, but it does not square with the simple facts. Now let us see if the United States Supreme Court agreed with this point:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Government is supposed to secure the Rights... the United States Supreme Court did not say that state constitutions "secure" a Right. It says GOVERNMENT. Government, at all levels and branches, must secure your Rights. They do that by not passing laws that contradict the Bill of Rights.

As proof that states do not secure these Rights, we will revisit the laws:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia


In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:


“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:


"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

And there it is. The states PROTECT the Right.

As verbs the difference between secure and protect
is that secure is to make safe; to relieve from apprehensions of, or exposure to, danger; to guard; to protect while protect is to keep safe; to defend; to guard; to prevent harm coming to.

As a adjective secure
is free from attack or danger; protected.

https://wikidiff.com/secure/protect

The way you word your position is that states secure Rights by way of their state constitution. That simply is not true danielpalos. The Rights existed before and independent of constitutions.

Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land, regardless.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Prove it. Your assertion is that every state constitution has a provision acknowledging and securing your unalienable Rights. Cite the words to say, let's make a easy, half a dozen states.

Quit making the same post and prove it. Let me make this easy for you. You will not find it in even one state. But, since you make the assertion a daily basis, you just got called on it.

 

[danielpalos]

There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment. All terms are collective and plural not singular and individual.

The Right does not need to be in the Second Amendment. It is a Right that predates the Constitution. It existed before the Constitution was penned and, according to the United States Supreme Court, the Right is NOT DEPENDENT upon the Constitution for its existence.

You misunderstand our federal form of Government and our written Constitution and supreme law of the land. Nothing is more supreme. Natural rights are found and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment. Natural rights are available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

No, YOU misunderstand. I've already posted the court holdings. I'll do it one more time. If you misrepresent the law again after that, everybody will realize that you are ignorant troll. Watch and learn:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

This is the courts telling you that absolute Rights existed BEFORE the Constitution was written. Do you understand that principle?

Then the courts went on to rule again and make sure you understand that absolute Rights are natural, inherent, and unalienable.

You can have your opinion all day long, but it does not square with the simple facts. Now let us see if the United States Supreme Court agreed with this point:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Government is supposed to secure the Rights... the United States Supreme Court did not say that state constitutions "secure" a Right. It says GOVERNMENT. Government, at all levels and branches, must secure your Rights. They do that by not passing laws that contradict the Bill of Rights.

As proof that states do not secure these Rights, we will revisit the laws:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia


In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:


“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:


"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

And there it is. The states PROTECT the Right.

As verbs the difference between secure and protect
is that secure is to make safe; to relieve from apprehensions of, or exposure to, danger; to guard; to protect while protect is to keep safe; to defend; to guard; to prevent harm coming to.

As a adjective secure
is free from attack or danger; protected.

https://wikidiff.com/secure/protect

The way you word your position is that states secure Rights by way of their state constitution. That simply is not true danielpalos. The Rights existed before and independent of constitutions.

Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land, regardless.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Prove it. Your assertion is that every state constitution has a provision acknowledging and securing your unalienable Rights. Cite the words to say, let's make a easy, half a dozen states.

Quit making the same post and prove it. Let me make this easy for you. You will not find it in even one state. But, since you make the assertion a daily basis, you just got called on it.

I noticed you didn't have an actual rebuttal for my previous post. Why is that?

 

[Gracie]

I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc..

If you handed George Washing an AR15, he'd know what it is, is what it is for, and want all hims troops, including militia, to have one.

And they should. My question is...why is an AR15 needed for the regular joe or jane to protect themselves from say, a home invader? Are they that bad a shot to need such a weapon whereas their 357 (for example) is not enough? Isn't the AK15 overkill (pun not intended)?

No it's not.

The best weapon for self defense is the one you have

or if you have more than one

The best weapon for self defense is the one you are most comfortable shooting.

I guess.
Some folks rely on pit bulls. Some on AK15s. Some with just Matilda and Bessie (my 357 and my 38). I don't think I would be comfy with an AK15. But...that's me.

 

[Gracie]

I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc..

If you handed George Washing an AR15, he'd know what it is, is what it is for, and want all hims troops, including militia, to have one.

And they should. My question is...why is an AR15 needed for the regular joe or jane to protect themselves from say, a home invader? Are they that bad a shot to need such a weapon whereas their 357 (for example) is not enough? Isn't the AK15 overkill (pun not intended)?

Why should anyone have to justify the value of their life to you? Do you "need" cigarettes, booze, a car that will exceed the speed limit, a Bible that can be misinterpreted and cause a cult leader to cost the lives of nearly a thousand (as in the case of Jim Jones?)

Have you ever fired a weapon at night at multiple attackers? A woman in my neighborhood did:

wsb video gwinnett woman shoots intruders - Bing video

Would you rather she be limited to six shots, three attackers, and in the dark? If she died, would you be happy? BTW, she had 15 rounds in the magazine.

Tell your local cops they need to go back to .357 revolvers. Try it. Yet you'd have the citizenry go up against the same bad guys with one and WE DON'T HAVE HUNDREDS OF BACK UP UNITS when we have to defend ourselves against those very same criminals.

You have misunderstood my OP. So have a few others. Perhaps I didn't post it well.
I am not against people having guns. I won't give up mine. I don't expect anyone else to give up theirs. I was curious as to the founding fathers and what was in their heads when they had no clue what the future had in store when it came to weaponry, NOT demanding people give up their rights.

So we have it all straight on weapon ownage. What are the thoughts of deeper background checks for those who DO own such weapons?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I guess.
Some folks rely on pit bulls. Some on AK15s. Some with just Matilda and Bessie (my 357 and my 38). I don't think I would be comfy with an AK15. But...that's me.

AK15?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The Right does not need to be in the Second Amendment. It is a Right that predates the Constitution. It existed before the Constitution was penned and, according to the United States Supreme Court, the Right is NOT DEPENDENT upon the Constitution for its existence.

You misunderstand our federal form of Government and our written Constitution and supreme law of the land. Nothing is more supreme. Natural rights are found and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment. Natural rights are available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

No, YOU misunderstand. I've already posted the court holdings. I'll do it one more time. If you misrepresent the law again after that, everybody will realize that you are ignorant troll. Watch and learn:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

This is the courts telling you that absolute Rights existed BEFORE the Constitution was written. Do you understand that principle?

Then the courts went on to rule again and make sure you understand that absolute Rights are natural, inherent, and unalienable.

You can have your opinion all day long, but it does not square with the simple facts. Now let us see if the United States Supreme Court agreed with this point:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Government is supposed to secure the Rights... the United States Supreme Court did not say that state constitutions "secure" a Right. It says GOVERNMENT. Government, at all levels and branches, must secure your Rights. They do that by not passing laws that contradict the Bill of Rights.

As proof that states do not secure these Rights, we will revisit the laws:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia


In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:


“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:


"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

And there it is. The states PROTECT the Right.

As verbs the difference between secure and protect
is that secure is to make safe; to relieve from apprehensions of, or exposure to, danger; to guard; to protect while protect is to keep safe; to defend; to guard; to prevent harm coming to.

As a adjective secure
is free from attack or danger; protected.

https://wikidiff.com/secure/protect

The way you word your position is that states secure Rights by way of their state constitution. That simply is not true danielpalos. The Rights existed before and independent of constitutions.

Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land, regardless.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Prove it. Your assertion is that every state constitution has a provision acknowledging and securing your unalienable Rights. Cite the words to say, let's make a easy, half a dozen states.

Quit making the same post and prove it. Let me make this easy for you. You will not find it in even one state. But, since you make the assertion a daily basis, you just got called on it.

I noticed you didn't have an actual rebuttal for my previous post. Why is that?

Of course I did. I told you to prove your assertion. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Next question....why does anyone want to own an AK47 or whatever they are called? For what purpose? To just blow stuff up?

AK47s have always been illegal in the United States. They have never been legal to import.

You may be referring to the semi-auto replicas of the AK47.

It doesn't matter why someone wants to own an AK civilian replica. Blowing shit up can be the only reason and none other. It is a right.

.

 

[danielpalos]

You misunderstand our federal form of Government and our written Constitution and supreme law of the land. Nothing is more supreme. Natural rights are found and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment. Natural rights are available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

No, YOU misunderstand. I've already posted the court holdings. I'll do it one more time. If you misrepresent the law again after that, everybody will realize that you are ignorant troll. Watch and learn:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

This is the courts telling you that absolute Rights existed BEFORE the Constitution was written. Do you understand that principle?

Then the courts went on to rule again and make sure you understand that absolute Rights are natural, inherent, and unalienable.

You can have your opinion all day long, but it does not square with the simple facts. Now let us see if the United States Supreme Court agreed with this point:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Government is supposed to secure the Rights... the United States Supreme Court did not say that state constitutions "secure" a Right. It says GOVERNMENT. Government, at all levels and branches, must secure your Rights. They do that by not passing laws that contradict the Bill of Rights.

As proof that states do not secure these Rights, we will revisit the laws:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia


In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:


“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:


"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

And there it is. The states PROTECT the Right.

As verbs the difference between secure and protect
is that secure is to make safe; to relieve from apprehensions of, or exposure to, danger; to guard; to protect while protect is to keep safe; to defend; to guard; to prevent harm coming to.

As a adjective secure
is free from attack or danger; protected.

https://wikidiff.com/secure/protect

The way you word your position is that states secure Rights by way of their state constitution. That simply is not true danielpalos. The Rights existed before and independent of constitutions.

Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land, regardless.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Prove it. Your assertion is that every state constitution has a provision acknowledging and securing your unalienable Rights. Cite the words to say, let's make a easy, half a dozen states.

Quit making the same post and prove it. Let me make this easy for you. You will not find it in even one state. But, since you make the assertion a daily basis, you just got called on it.

I noticed you didn't have an actual rebuttal for my previous post. Why is that?

Of course I did. I told you to prove your assertion. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

lol. i cited a State Constitution.

that is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc..

If you handed George Washing an AR15, he'd know what it is, is what it is for, and want all hims troops, including militia, to have one.

And they should. My question is...why is an AR15 needed for the regular joe or jane to protect themselves from say, a home invader? Are they that bad a shot to need such a weapon whereas their 357 (for example) is not enough? Isn't the AK15 overkill (pun not intended)?

Why should anyone have to justify the value of their life to you? Do you "need" cigarettes, booze, a car that will exceed the speed limit, a Bible that can be misinterpreted and cause a cult leader to cost the lives of nearly a thousand (as in the case of Jim Jones?)

Have you ever fired a weapon at night at multiple attackers? A woman in my neighborhood did:

wsb video gwinnett woman shoots intruders - Bing video

Would you rather she be limited to six shots, three attackers, and in the dark? If she died, would you be happy? BTW, she had 15 rounds in the magazine.

Tell your local cops they need to go back to .357 revolvers. Try it. Yet you'd have the citizenry go up against the same bad guys with one and WE DON'T HAVE HUNDREDS OF BACK UP UNITS when we have to defend ourselves against those very same criminals.

You have misunderstood my OP. So have a few others. Perhaps I didn't post it well.
I am not against people having guns. I won't give up mine. I don't expect anyone else to give up theirs. I was curious as to the founding fathers and what was in their heads when they had no clue what the future had in store when it came to weaponry, NOT demanding people give up their rights.

So we have it all straight on weapon ownage. What are the thoughts of deeper background checks for those who DO own such weapons?

First off, high capacity weapons have been in the United States since the late 1780s. Today, with a country with over 400 million weapons, fewer than 1 percent are used in a crime.

Everybody wants to do the "deeper" background check. Let me cut through all the B.S. and give you the straight skinny:

1) A background check in order to exercise a constitutional Right is a clear cut violation of the 4th Amendment

2) A background check only tells you about a person AFTER they've done something so egregious that it warrants a criminal record

3) With psychologists and psychiatrists to a man (or woman) being anti-gun, anyone who crosses their threshold will not qualify to own one of "those" weapons

4) The law will go after ANYONE who has experienced any kind of mental episode or occurrence: a trip to the psychologist for impotence, marriage counseling, dealing with a dysfunctional home life, or getting over the death of a loved one could, potentially mean a person could not be cleared to buy a firearm.

All is not lost. I put a bill on the table and NOBODY wants to talk about it. Let me explain why:


What I propose does not increase taxes; it does not require a large bureaucracy; it won't result in ANY infringement on a person's gun Rights. That's why politicians don't care about it. The general public COULD get behind the effort, but NOBODY is about saving lives. It's all about control.

People who are going to commit an act of violence are CREATED in their early years. Once a child hits a finite number of the 16 markers that tell us a person WILL commit a violent act AND you mix in SSRIs (psychotropic drugs) you know that this will happen.

Mass shooters tend to be young, white, males (political jihadists who are the minority of mass shooters may not fit the majority profile.) These people exhibit certain behaviors that, once a mass shooting is over, those who knew the shooter will be saying "I'm not surprised," we knew something like this was going to happen," etc. As laymen we many not know the precise reasons, but I do.

Nicholas Cruz, a good example, interacted with police at least 23 times and as many as 45 times - not counting being kicked out of school. Why in the Hell did the system not HELP this man before he became a mass shooter? I can tell you how to identify them early; I can tell you how to get them the help they need and there WILL be fewer mass shootings. The problem is we have to change our culture. If someone would help save those kids and help them, we can cut mass shootings down by 90 percent. OR we can create multiple classes of citizens with varying degrees of Liberty - and will deter many from seeking help for mental issues. We can fix this, but I've got to get the facts on the table and present the idea first. Sorry, it's not going to fit on a bumper sticker - then again, those solutions have NEVER worked.

 

[Gracie]

I guess.
Some folks rely on pit bulls. Some on AK15s. Some with just Matilda and Bessie (my 357 and my 38). I don't think I would be comfy with an AK15. But...that's me.

AK15?

Sorry. Not up to date on AKWhatevers. I like my 357 and my 38. Good nuff for me. Then again..if a civil war broke out..I might want an AKWhatever.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

No, YOU misunderstand. I've already posted the court holdings. I'll do it one more time. If you misrepresent the law again after that, everybody will realize that you are ignorant troll. Watch and learn:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

This is the courts telling you that absolute Rights existed BEFORE the Constitution was written. Do you understand that principle?

Then the courts went on to rule again and make sure you understand that absolute Rights are natural, inherent, and unalienable.

You can have your opinion all day long, but it does not square with the simple facts. Now let us see if the United States Supreme Court agreed with this point:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Government is supposed to secure the Rights... the United States Supreme Court did not say that state constitutions "secure" a Right. It says GOVERNMENT. Government, at all levels and branches, must secure your Rights. They do that by not passing laws that contradict the Bill of Rights.

As proof that states do not secure these Rights, we will revisit the laws:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia


In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:


“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:


"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

And there it is. The states PROTECT the Right.

As verbs the difference between secure and protect
is that secure is to make safe; to relieve from apprehensions of, or exposure to, danger; to guard; to protect while protect is to keep safe; to defend; to guard; to prevent harm coming to.

As a adjective secure
is free from attack or danger; protected.

https://wikidiff.com/secure/protect

The way you word your position is that states secure Rights by way of their state constitution. That simply is not true danielpalos. The Rights existed before and independent of constitutions.

Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land, regardless.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Prove it. Your assertion is that every state constitution has a provision acknowledging and securing your unalienable Rights. Cite the words to say, let's make a easy, half a dozen states.

Quit making the same post and prove it. Let me make this easy for you. You will not find it in even one state. But, since you make the assertion a daily basis, you just got called on it.

I noticed you didn't have an actual rebuttal for my previous post. Why is that?

Of course I did. I told you to prove your assertion. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

lol. i cited a State Constitution.

that is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

You are a pathological liar. In all the time you've been on this board, you have NEVER given a citation to any constitution that purports to support your position.

All you do is bitch about some "right wing fantasy" so perhaps you have your head stuck so far up Chuck Schumer's ass, he has to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air.

For me, this is not some right v. left wing propaganda way. It's about wrong v. right; truth v. lies; Liberty v. Tyranny. You just post the same shit over and over, which serves no purpose. The reality is that any person who does the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result is the textbook definition of an idiot.

danielpalos, you need some new material. If you have a fact, put it on the table. If you're just here to spew some leftist message that NOBODY gets except you, then you are an ineffective spokesman for the left and probably encouraging people to look to the right for new responses.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I guess.
Some folks rely on pit bulls. Some on AK15s. Some with just Matilda and Bessie (my 357 and my 38). I don't think I would be comfy with an AK15. But...that's me.

AK15?

Sorry. Not up to date on AKWhatevers. I like my 357 and my 38. Good nuff for me. Then again..if a civil war broke out..I might want an AKWhatever.

Get yourself a man sized target. Test your skills. I once filled some old clothes with leaves and made a dummy sized head of cardboard. I then woke my ex-wife from her deep slumber and told her an intruder was trying to break in. When action is going on, you can't always take the time to find a light switch. She ran to the front door and emptied her revolver at a distance of less that 10 feet. She did target practice for a month before, but in the dark she missed the target all six times!

How much is enough?



More than 30 rounds are exchanged and seasoned police miss every time! Nobody can tell me what my life is worth.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land, regardless.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.

Prove it. Your assertion is that every state constitution has a provision acknowledging and securing your unalienable Rights. Cite the words to say, let's make a easy, half a dozen states.

Quit making the same post and prove it. Let me make this easy for you. You will not find it in even one state. But, since you make the assertion a daily basis, you just got called on it.

I noticed you didn't have an actual rebuttal for my previous post. Why is that?

Of course I did. I told you to prove your assertion. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

lol. i cited a State Constitution.

that is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

You are a pathological liar. In all the time you've been on this board, you have NEVER given a citation to any constitution that purports to support your position.

All you do is bitch about some "right wing fantasy" so perhaps you have your head stuck so far up Chuck Schumer's ass, he has to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air.

For me, this is not some right v. left wing propaganda way. It's about wrong v. right; truth v. lies; Liberty v. Tyranny. You just post the same shit over and over, which serves no purpose. The reality is that any person who does the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result is the textbook definition of an idiot.

danielpalos, you need some new material. If you have a fact, put it on the table. If you're just here to spew some leftist message that NOBODY gets except you, then you are an ineffective spokesman for the left and probably encouraging people to look to the right for new responses.

Only hypocrites say what you do. I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

All You have is appeals to ignorance.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Prove it. Your assertion is that every state constitution has a provision acknowledging and securing your unalienable Rights. Cite the words to say, let's make a easy, half a dozen states.

Quit making the same post and prove it. Let me make this easy for you. You will not find it in even one state. But, since you make the assertion a daily basis, you just got called on it.

I noticed you didn't have an actual rebuttal for my previous post. Why is that?

Of course I did. I told you to prove your assertion. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

lol. i cited a State Constitution.

that is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

You are a pathological liar. In all the time you've been on this board, you have NEVER given a citation to any constitution that purports to support your position.

All you do is bitch about some "right wing fantasy" so perhaps you have your head stuck so far up Chuck Schumer's ass, he has to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air.

For me, this is not some right v. left wing propaganda way. It's about wrong v. right; truth v. lies; Liberty v. Tyranny. You just post the same shit over and over, which serves no purpose. The reality is that any person who does the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result is the textbook definition of an idiot.

danielpalos, you need some new material. If you have a fact, put it on the table. If you're just here to spew some leftist message that NOBODY gets except you, then you are an ineffective spokesman for the left and probably encouraging people to look to the right for new responses.

Only hypocrites say what you do. I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

All You have is appeals to ignorance.

You have not EVER linked to a State Constitution. If you have link it now.

 

[danielpalos]

I noticed you didn't have an actual rebuttal for my previous post. Why is that?

Of course I did. I told you to prove your assertion. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

lol. i cited a State Constitution.

that is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

You are a pathological liar. In all the time you've been on this board, you have NEVER given a citation to any constitution that purports to support your position.

All you do is bitch about some "right wing fantasy" so perhaps you have your head stuck so far up Chuck Schumer's ass, he has to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air.

For me, this is not some right v. left wing propaganda way. It's about wrong v. right; truth v. lies; Liberty v. Tyranny. You just post the same shit over and over, which serves no purpose. The reality is that any person who does the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result is the textbook definition of an idiot.

danielpalos, you need some new material. If you have a fact, put it on the table. If you're just here to spew some leftist message that NOBODY gets except you, then you are an ineffective spokesman for the left and probably encouraging people to look to the right for new responses.

Only hypocrites say what you do. I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

All You have is appeals to ignorance.

You have not EVER linked to a State Constitution. If you have link it now.

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course I did. I told you to prove your assertion. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

lol. i cited a State Constitution.

that is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

You are a pathological liar. In all the time you've been on this board, you have NEVER given a citation to any constitution that purports to support your position.

All you do is bitch about some "right wing fantasy" so perhaps you have your head stuck so far up Chuck Schumer's ass, he has to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air.

For me, this is not some right v. left wing propaganda way. It's about wrong v. right; truth v. lies; Liberty v. Tyranny. You just post the same shit over and over, which serves no purpose. The reality is that any person who does the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result is the textbook definition of an idiot.

danielpalos, you need some new material. If you have a fact, put it on the table. If you're just here to spew some leftist message that NOBODY gets except you, then you are an ineffective spokesman for the left and probably encouraging people to look to the right for new responses.

Only hypocrites say what you do. I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

All You have is appeals to ignorance.

You have not EVER linked to a State Constitution. If you have link it now.

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

So you can not link to a State Constitution that says what you claim BUT we are to believe your delusional rantings anyway?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are errors in those opinions. Our Ninth Amendment applies.

Well, if you feel that way, tell they judges. They wrote the rulings.

Seems like the activism of legislating from the bench. The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.

That is irrelevant. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent on the Constitution. In other words, the Right predates the Constitution.

where do you get your propaganda from?

the simple legal error was in the composition of the militia. the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only militia service, well regulated.

I'm not a political hack. I work in a firm that does legal research, shepardizing, legal investigations, and prepares briefs. How about you?

You can talk about the militia all day long. I'm talking about the Right to keep and bear Arms. Since neither the right nor the left concern themselves with the elements of Freedom, Liberty and Justice, it leaves a void wherein I can share something besides the typical political dumbassery that you apparently dabble in on a daily basis.

As someone familiar with the history of legal precedents, I try to follow the reasoning of how the Constitution today means 180 degrees opposite of what it did when the framers put their signature on it.

There is a higher principle in play. Nobody is ever required to disobey an unconstitutional law. The challenge is, we have to know when the United States Supreme Court oversteps their boundaries and give their unconscionable actions the same respect we'd give to any other illegal act.

Nonsense.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

The Framers understood this, which is why they codified the doctrine of judicial review in Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

And those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment likewise did not presume to have a comprehensive understanding as to the meaning of the rights enshrined in the Amendment, of what weapons were subject to government regulation and what weapons were not, and what is the scope of lawful self-defense – matters that later generations would determine through the political process and eventually in the courts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc..

If you handed George Washing an AR15, he'd know what it is, is what it is for, and want all hims troops, including militia, to have one.

And they should. My question is...why is an AR15 needed for the regular joe or jane to protect themselves from say, a home invader? Are they that bad a shot to need such a weapon whereas their 357 (for example) is not enough? Isn't the AK15 overkill (pun not intended)?

That depends on the venue being protected.

In an apartment complex, for example, an AR 15 is not the best option; a shotgun or handgun would be preferable.

An AR 15 would be better suited in a rural setting or somewhere with a less dense population.

My choice of a weapon for home defense is a handgun.

In the event of an emergency such as a hurricane I prefer an AK over an AR; indeed, the sight and sound of an AK’s action being cycled alone is sufficient to deter would be interlopers and looters.

 

[Agit8r]

I don't see any reason that semi-automatic carbines couldn't be categorized as a "destructive weapon," and require a tax stamp,

More relevantly, you cannot provide a sound argument for the necessity and efficacy of such a thing.

Maybe it isn't. large magazine are more important, for sure (Anders Brevik, etc). But at least there could be some new revenue, that wouldn't do anyone any harm ) unlike tariffs.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Of course I did. I told you to prove your assertion. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

lol. i cited a State Constitution.

that is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

You are a pathological liar. In all the time you've been on this board, you have NEVER given a citation to any constitution that purports to support your position.

All you do is bitch about some "right wing fantasy" so perhaps you have your head stuck so far up Chuck Schumer's ass, he has to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air.

For me, this is not some right v. left wing propaganda way. It's about wrong v. right; truth v. lies; Liberty v. Tyranny. You just post the same shit over and over, which serves no purpose. The reality is that any person who does the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result is the textbook definition of an idiot.

danielpalos, you need some new material. If you have a fact, put it on the table. If you're just here to spew some leftist message that NOBODY gets except you, then you are an ineffective spokesman for the left and probably encouraging people to look to the right for new responses.

Only hypocrites say what you do. I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

All You have is appeals to ignorance.

You have not EVER linked to a State Constitution. If you have link it now.

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

You're an idiot, danielpalos. I personally don't have anything to do with the right wing. I'm not into partisan politics. You repost the same couple of lines over and over, then when challenged to prove it, you can't.

You claim you have. But you haven't. The only thing you've been right about is that we can't appeal to your ignorance. Your worship it too much.